Hi Marek, On 1 September 2018 at 16:45, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09/01/2018 11:50 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > > > On 30 August 2018 at 07:42, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 08/30/2018 03:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > >>> Hi Marek, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:07 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 08/29/2018 05:15 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > >>>>> +Simon > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Marek, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:22 PM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 08/24/2018 08:27 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>> The PCI controller can have DT subnodes describing extra properties > >>>>>>> of particular PCI devices, ie. a PHY attached to an EHCI controller > >>>>>>> on a PCI bus. This patch parses those DT subnodes and assigns a node > >>>>>>> to the PCI device instance, so that the driver can extract details > >>>>>>> from that node and ie. configure the PHY using the PHY subsystem. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, bump ? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is the only missing patch to get my hardware working properly. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think we ever had an agreement on the v1 patch. Simon had a > >>>>> long email that pointed out what Linux does seems like a 'fallback' to > >>>>> find a node with no compatible string. > >>>>> > >>>>> Back to this, if we have to go with this way, please create a test > >>>>> case to cover this scenario. > >>>> > >>>> The fact that it works on a particular board is not tested enough? > >>>> Do we need a custom, special, synthetic test ? > >>>> > >>> > >>> I believe that's always been the requirement against the DM code > >>> changes. I was requested in the past when I changed something in the > >>> DM and I see other people were asked to do so. Like Alex said, it does > >>> not mean this patch was not tested enough, but to ensure future > >>> commits won't break this. > >> > >> So, do you have any suggestion how to implement this test ? It seems > >> Alex posed the same question. It doesn't seem to be trivial in the > >> context of sandbox. > > > > I suppose you need a PCI_DEVICE() declaration for sandbox, with an > > associated DT node and no compatible string. Then check that you can > > locate the device and that it read a DT property correctly. > > Is there any example of this stuff already ?
See the bottom of swap_case.c. You might be able to add a new one of those, If you look at pci-controller2 in test.dts it has a device with a compatible string. You could try adding a second device with no compatible string. > > >>>> Anyway, any feedback on the patch ? Did you test it ? I again only see > >>>> "do this random stuff and that random stuff" , but zero actual feedback. > >>>> > >>> > >>> If "this and that random stuff" means test case I asked for, please > >>> check my proposal on the v1 patch thread which indicated that a proper > >>> test case should be created. You seems to have missed that. > >> > >> So, any feedback on this actual patch ? > > > > What is 'potention'? > > potential typo . > > > Is there any check needed that it does not attach the same DT node to > > two different devices? Or perhaps that cannot happen, since we > > shouldn't expect two nodes to share a BDF? > > I guess it could happen and I didn't find a good solution to this even > in Linux. The current take on this possibility seems to be "let's live > with it". OK. > > > I think it looks OK, assuming this is the way we want to go. > > > > Regards, > > Simon > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Marek Vasut Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
